Judgment :- ABDUL HADI J. All these tax case references under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are preferred by the Revenue. They relate to different assessment years as mentioned below (1) Tax Cases Nos. 1435 and 1436 of 1985 : 1974-75 (Both these tax cases arise out of the same common order of the Tribunal in two appeals before it one by the assessee and another by the Revenue) (2) Tax Case No. 412 of 1986 : 1975-76 (3) Tax Case No. 401 of 1986 : 1977-78 (4) Tax Case No. 1133 of 1985 : 1978-79 (5) Tax Case No. 1134 of 1985 : 1979-80 (6) Tax Case No. 1135 of 1985 : 1980-81 In all these seven tax cases relating to the same assessee one common question is involved and hence, they are heard together The said common question is regarding the valuation for the purpose of wealth-tax assessment of the agricultural lands of the assessee, of an extent of 624.16 ordinary acres owned by the assessee, against which lands, proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the ceiling law"), had been taken and 15 standard acres equivalent to 30 ordinary acres had already been fixed as the ceiling area in respect of the family of the assessee and the balance 594.16 ordinary acres equivalent to 201.406 standard acres had been declared as surplus to become vested with the Government. According to learned counsel for the assessee, the said vesting has not taken place since section 18 notification under the ceiling law is only going to be issued shortly. Admittedly, by an earlier order of the Tribunal dated July 26, 1976, the market value of the abovesaid total lands as on the date of valuation dated March 31, 1973, in relation to the earlier assessment year 1973-74 was fixed at Rs. 10, 00, 000 under section 7 of the Wealth tax Act, 1957, while computing the net wealth of the assessee in respect of the earlier assessment year 1973-74. But now by the impugned orders of the Tribunal, the earliest of which was passed on September 30, 1981, the said value was fixed at a lower figure, viz., Rs. 5, 00, 000. The same value of Rs. 5, 00, 000 has been adopted for all the abovesaid assessment years in all the abovesaid tax cases. But now by the impugned orders of the Tribunal, the earliest of which was passed on September 30, 1981, the said value was fixed at a lower figure, viz., Rs. 5, 00, 000. The same value of Rs. 5, 00, 000 has been adopted for all the abovesaid assessment years in all the abovesaid tax cases. Aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred these tax cases against the abovesaid reduction in the market value of the abovesaid lands in question under section 7 of the Wealth-tax ActIt is in the abovesaid context, the above referred to common question arises regarding the market value of the abovesaid lands for the purpose of the wealth-tax assessment The abovesaid common question is reflected -in the first question referred to us under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act in Tax Cases Nos. 1435 and, 1436 of 1985, which runs as follows "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the Tribunal itself had fixed the value of the agricultural lands owned by the assessee at Rs. 10, 00, 000 as on the valuation dated March 31, 1973, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the same lands should be fixed at Rs. 5, 00, 000 as on March 31, 1974 ?" * Thus, the said question relates to the assessment year 1974-75. In the same way, the first question referred to us in Tax Case No. 412 of 1986 is also worded and the only difference is, it relates to the assessment year 1975-76. In the same way , the first question in Tax Case No. 401 of 1986 is also worded and the only difference is, it relates to the assessment year 1977-78. In the same way in Tax Cases Nos. 1133 to 1135 of 1985 also, the sole question referred to us is worded and the only difference is, the question refers to all the abovereferred to three assessment years, viz., 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 There is also a second question, which has been referred to us in Tax Cases Nos. 1435 and 1436 of 1985 and 412 and 401 of 1986. The said second question in Tax Cases Nos. 1435 and 1436 of 1985 and 412 and 401 of 1986. The said second question in Tax Cases Nos. 1435 and 1436 of 1985 runs as follows "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the assessee's approved valuer himself has valued the lands admeasuring 624.16 acres at Rs. 18, 05, 259, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the said lands would only be Rs. 5, 00, 000 ?" * As already indicated, this relates to the assessment year 1974-75. Almost in the same way, the second question in Tax Case No. 412 of 1986 is also worded, but it relates to the assessment year 1975-76. Further, almost in the same way, the second question referred to us in Tax Case No. 401 of 1986 is also worded. However, it relates to the assessment year 1977-78 We may first of all dispose of the abovesaid second question. Learned counsel for the Revenue himself fairly submits that the valuation of the approved valuer will not take note of the abovesaid ceiling law and that hence, the value of the approved valuer may not be actually relevant to decide the actual question at issue, which hinges only upon the abovereferred to ceiling proceeding. Therefore, strictly speaking the said second question is not justifiably raised before us by the Revenue and that, hence, the said question has to be returned unanswered Learned counsel for the Revenue laid more emphasis on the abovesaid first question in Tax Cases Nos. 1435 and 1436 of 1985 and 412 and 401 of 1986 and the sole question in Tax Cases Nos. 1133 to 1135 of 1985. We shall now deal with the said question in all the abovesaid tax cases. The main argument of learned counsel for the Revenue is that the Tribunal by its abovereferred to the earlier order dated July 26, 1976, having fixed the value of all the abovesaid lands, as on March 31, 1973 (the valuation date in relation to the assessment year 1973-74), at Rs. 10, 00, 000, it could not have reduced it to Rs. 5, 00, 000 in respect of the subsequent assessment years, that is, on the respective valuation dates, viz., March 31, 1974, March 31, 1975, March 31, 1977, March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980. 10, 00, 000, it could not have reduced it to Rs. 5, 00, 000 in respect of the subsequent assessment years, that is, on the respective valuation dates, viz., March 31, 1974, March 31, 1975, March 31, 1977, March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980. In this connection, he relies on the decisions in Ahmed G.H.Ari v. CWT ; Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation v. CWT; Purshottam N.Amarsay v. CWT and CWT v. Raj Kumari Bhubaneshwari Kumari which was followed later in CWT v. Raj Kumari Bhuvneshwari. But, the argument of learned counsel for the assessee is that the Tribunal made such a reduction in value only because of the amendment to the abovesaid ceiling law, by Ordinance No. 14 of 1979, which subsequently became Act No. 11 of 1979 with effect from October 27, 1978, by which the method of computation of compensation payable to the land owner was changed and consequently the said compensation payable came to be reduced. Further, he points out that when the abovereferred to earlier order of the Tribunal dated July 26, 1976 was passed, the abovesaid amending law had not come into being and that is why the Tribunal when it passed the said order on July 26, 1976, took note only of the earlier ceiling law prior to the amendment and arrived at the abovesaid figure of Rs. 10, 00, 000 as the market value. He further points out that when the present impugned order dated September 13, 1981, and the subsequent impugned orders were passed by the Tribunal, the abovesaid amending law had come into being and so, it took note of the said amending law and made the abovesaid reduction in value. Therefore, according to the said learned counsel, the abovesaid question referred to us in all the abovesaid cases has only to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In this connection, he also relied on CWT v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar. We have considered the rival submissions. One fact must be stated even at the very outset. Even learned counsel for the Revenue accepts in principle that in such cases, the abovesaid ceiling law has to be taken note of in fixing the market value of those lands, which are declared to be surplus under the ceiling law and would vest with the Government pursuant to section 18 of the Act. Even learned counsel for the Revenue accepts in principle that in such cases, the abovesaid ceiling law has to be taken note of in fixing the market value of those lands, which are declared to be surplus under the ceiling law and would vest with the Government pursuant to section 18 of the Act. We also find that in so far as such surplus lands under the ceiling law is concerned, the law is that, for valuation of such lands for the purpose of wealth-tax assessment, restrictions and prohibitions under the land ceiling law should be taken note of. In CWT v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar this court also observed thus "It cannot be disputed that the restrictions and prohibitions will have the effect of depressing the value which the lands would fetch if they were free from the said restrictions and prohibitions. Though we have to assume a market for the lands, in determining the market value of the lands, the restrictions and prohibitions contained in the Ceiling Act have to be taken note of and the value of the lands with all these restrictions and prohibitions should have to be determined. If we ignore the restrictions and prohibitions contained in the Ceiling Act in valuing the excess lands, then that would be valuing an asset differently in content and quality from that actually owned by the assessees. We are, therefore, of the view that all the lands have to be valued only after taking note of the restrictions and prohibitions which will have the effect of depressing the value, which the lands would fetch if sold free from any restrictions and prohibitions. This view of ours finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Sihand. It must also be noted that in the said decision, viz., v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar the other two Supreme Court decisions viz., Ahmed G. H. Ariff v. CWT and Purshottam N. Amarsay v. CWT were also referred to. A further observation of this court in CWT v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar runs as follows: "Normally, the market value of the land is the value which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise ; such market value is generally ascertained on a consideration of the prices obtained by sale of adjacent lands with similar advantages. If there are no sales of comparable lands, the value must be found from some other way. One method is to take the annual income which the owner is expected to obtain from the land and to capitalise it by a number of years purchase and the capitalised value is then taken as the market value which a willing seller may reasonably expect to obtain from a willing buyer. If this also is not possible, the court can adopt the method of reinstatement value." * Learned counsel for the Revenue only submits that the last sentence of the abovesaid observation will not be correct in the case of lands being taken under the ceiling law. But, there is no necessity to go into the correctness of the abovesaid observation in the abovesaid last sentence, in relation to the abovesaid ceiling law. For our present purpose, it is enough to take the abovesaid conclusion of this court in CWT v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar that the restrictions and prohibitions under the ceiling law will have the effect of depressing the value which the lands would fetch if they were free from the said restrictions and prohibitions. So such ceiling law is a relevant factor in fixing the market value of the surplus lands, under the said ceiling law In fact in CWT v. Raj Kumari Bhubaneshwari Kumari the decision cited by learned counsel for the Revenue itself, it was held that if an asset is subject to certain hazards including the liability of certain debts to be deducted from the asset, then that factor which has the effect of diminishing the market value of the asset is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while estimating the value of the asset in the open market. This observation was made in the context of the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1973, which placed restrictions on transfer by saying that no person owning urban property in excess of the specified limit shall transfer such property by way of sale, etc., or otherwise. The abovesaid principle was also followed in CWT v. Raj Kumari Bhuvneshwari cited by learned counsel for the Revenue himself But, what learned counsel for the Revenue submits is that once, taking note of the abovesaid ceiling law of 1961, the Tribunal fixed the abovesaid value of Rs. The abovesaid principle was also followed in CWT v. Raj Kumari Bhuvneshwari cited by learned counsel for the Revenue himself But, what learned counsel for the Revenue submits is that once, taking note of the abovesaid ceiling law of 1961, the Tribunal fixed the abovesaid value of Rs. 10, 00, 000 as on March 31, 1973, it cannot reduce the same in relation to the subsequent valuation dates. But, this contention cannot be accepted since the abovesaid reduction was made by the Tribunal, because of the subsequent amendment to the abovesaid ceiling law of 1961 by virtue of the abovesaid Ordinance No. 14 of 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Act (11 of 1979), with effect from October 27, 1978. Even though the said Act says that it comes into force from October 27, 1978, certainly that amendment Act would apply to the pending land ceiling proceeding of the assessee and only the compensation pursuant to the abovesaid amending law, would be paid to the family of the assessee. After going through the pre-existing ceiling law and the law pursuant to the abovesaid Act (11 of 1979), learned counsel for the Revenue himself has to concede that there will be a reduction in the compensation payable for the surplus lands to be taken over by the Government. If such amendment law is taken note of in the present orders of the Tribunal and the abovesaid reduction in value from Rs. 10, 00, 000 to Rs. 5, 00, 000 is made, we do not think that any question of law would arise against such reduction for our interferenceNo doubt, learned counsel for the Revenue sought to contend that the abovesaid reduction by the Tribunal is not actually based on the abovesaid amending law. But, on reading the present order of the Tribunal, it is seen that the said reduction is only based on the abovesaid amending law. In fact, the Tribunal refers to the clamour prior to the abovesaid amending law, for reduction of the compensation payable to the landlords, so that the surplus land could be distributed to the landless labour at cheaper compensation and points out that because of such clamour, compensation was drastically reduced from that of the principal Act. In fact, the Tribunal refers to the clamour prior to the abovesaid amending law, for reduction of the compensation payable to the landlords, so that the surplus land could be distributed to the landless labour at cheaper compensation and points out that because of such clamour, compensation was drastically reduced from that of the principal Act. The Tribunal further proceeds to state that the said reduction took place in Tamil Nadu only by the Ordinance of 1978 and that it was for this very reason that the compensation was reduced in Tamil Nadu. It also says that the object and reasons in the Bill reads that the amount payable for surplus lands taken over, was found in certain cases to be high and that it resulted in difficulty in collecting the land value from the assignees. It also says that the Bill is also retrospective in effect which shows that such demands for reduction were there even before the date on which the law was enacted No doubt, learned counsel for the Revenue also argues that the amending law came only in 1978 while most of the relevant valuation dates in the above cases were prior to 1979. In other words, he submits that the ceiling law as on March 31, 1973 (the valuation date, in relation to the assessment year 1973-74), continued even subsequently for some time till the amending law of 1978 and so at least the valuation on the valuation dates prior to the coming into force of the amending law, cannot be changed by the Tribunal by its subsequent order. But, this contention has no merit. The Tribunal, when it passed the earlier order dated July 26, 1976, knew only about the then existing ceiling law, therefore, it fixed the value at Rs. 10, 00, 000. But when it passed the subsequent order dated September 30, 1981 (and other subsequent orders), since, it came to know about the subsequent change in the law, consequently, it estimated the reduction in the said value to the abovesaid Rs. 5, 00, 000 though the assessee worked out the said reduced compensation at Rs. 2, 74, 355 only. (i.e., Rs. 1, 20, 000 for lands within the ceiling area and Rs. 1, 54, 365 for the surplus lands). 5, 00, 000 though the assessee worked out the said reduced compensation at Rs. 2, 74, 355 only. (i.e., Rs. 1, 20, 000 for lands within the ceiling area and Rs. 1, 54, 365 for the surplus lands). In such a situation, the only error of law learned counsel for the Revenue could point out is that the Tribunal erred in not differentiating between the abovesaid two categories of lands, viz., the surplus lands and the lands within the ceiling area, under the abovesaid ceiling law. This error is admitted by learned counsel for the assessee alsoAccordingly, the questions referred to us in all the abovesaid tax cases are answered, by saying that though the Tribunal is right in taking note of the abovesaid amending law to the ceiling law, in so far as the abovesaid surplus lands are concerned, as a relevant factor in fixing the market value of the said, lands for the purpose of wealth-tax assessment on the assessee, it has erred in taking note of it, in so far as the lands within the ceiling area of the assessee to be retained by him are concerned, since in the latter case, the open market value could be fixed up under section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. (The net result is the Tribunal has to refix the market value for both the categories of lands separately). No costs.